Papers › An Empirical Study of Content Understanding in Conversational Question Answering
An Empirical Study of Content Understanding in Conversational Question Answering
Ting-Rui Chiang, Hao-Tong Ye, Yun-Nung Chen
With a lot of work about context-free question answering systems, there is an emerging trend of conversational question answering models in the natural language processing field. Thanks to the recently collected datasets, including QuAC and CoQA, there has been more work on conversational question answering, and recent work has achieved competitive performance on both datasets. However, to best of our knowledge, two important questions for conversational comprehension research have not been well studied: 1) How well can the benchmark dataset reflect models' content understanding? 2) Do the models well utilize the conversation content when answering questions? To investigate these questions, we design different training settings, testing settings, as well as an attack to verify the models' capability of content understanding on QuAC and CoQA. The experimental results indicate some potential hazards in the benchmark datasets, QuAC and CoQA, for conversational comprehension research. Our analysis also sheds light on both what models may learn and how datasets may bias the models. With deep investigation of the task, it is believed that this work can benefit the future progress of conversation comprehension. The source code is available at https://github.com/MiuLab/CQA-Study.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections